If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please God no, don't let this happen. They're horribly distracting, and for the most part they look like utter crap. You'll also end up with a ton of new users having their avatar as a pair of bouncing tits or a slapped, wobbling arse or some other puerile bollocks, at least if every forum that allows them is anything to go by.

Depends on your definition of "want." I didn't nominate myself, but I'm going to have a lot of free time for the next six months and I don't know better than to commit to moderating a community I rather enjoy spending time in. I haven't been here half as long as most of the nominees, and I doubt I'm even on Jim's radar in the first place. I would be incredibly surprised if I was selected, and as far as I'm concerned, it's not going to happen.

I like the idea that someone thought I'd make a reasonable moderator candidate, appreciation being appreciable, but beyond that I don't think the job sounds glamorous or exciting. I don't see this as a source of power I could potentially wield. It's a small job I could theoretically take up that would at worst be kind of boring and at best be kind of boring, but feel good too.

Wouldn't it be kind of important to figure out what about modding willing mod candidates like the sound of before you assumed that they were going to go all corrupt and evil? Maybe Berzee likes flagging spam because it's cathartic. And don't pretend my argument is invalid just because I didn't refuse the hypothetical position--we're not talking about some potent psychological differentiator here. It's not hard to distance myself from me who is ok being a mod enough to imagine me who isn't ok being a mod. Maybe I've only traveled in peaceful corners of the Internet, but I don't have a bad history with community moderation and I just don't see the cause for raising the stakes on this issue. Put another way, I understand the fundamental logic at work but I don't understand why it applies to this specific situation and why there aren't enough mitigating factors here to render the mechanics of power and responsibility and internalized social role play relatively harmless.

I think of [the Internet] as a grisly raw steak laid out on a porcelain benchtop in the sun, covered in chocolate hazelnut sauce. In the background plays Stardustís Music Sounds Better With You. Thereís lots of fog. --tomeoftom

"Want" comes in degrees, accompanied by varied motives. "Is"? Not so much.

I think of [the Internet] as a grisly raw steak laid out on a porcelain benchtop in the sun, covered in chocolate hazelnut sauce. In the background plays Stardustís Music Sounds Better With You. Thereís lots of fog. --tomeoftom

I think of [the Internet] as a grisly raw steak laid out on a porcelain benchtop in the sun, covered in chocolate hazelnut sauce. In the background plays Stardustís Music Sounds Better With You. Thereís lots of fog. --tomeoftom

That's a cool idea! I'm still a bit confused though--I think it would be nice to give mods something other than cash to make their job a little nicer. But in any case, I really don't see a lot of power to be grabbed here. It's a forum moderator position; I suppose the position could be constructed as one of ultimate power and authority in some communities especially those in which moderators have a lot more privileges than it sounds like RPS moderators get. But it doesn't have to be that way. RPS moderation sounds like being a janitor with the added thankless task of asking angry people to be nicer to each other in the heat of the moment, and maybe locking a thread if they're too entrenched or upset and continue to have at one another.

I think there are probably some people happy to do it for the benefit of the community (though there you potentially have the issue of what their 'vision' for the community is and so on) but then I think you risk burn-out - it's a thankless task and volunteers are great but don't stick around.

Plus RPS have always been very strongly and vocally in favour of paying people who write for them, and outspoken against the many sites asking people to write for free. Obviously they can't really afford to pay a community mod (and even if they could, better the money was spent on hiring Cara - or some other writer if they absolutely must). But it'd be nice to find a way to compensate that person that was very much in the RPS ethos.

I think there are probably some people happy to do it for the benefit of the community (though there you potentially have the issue of what their 'vision' for the community is and so on) but then I think you risk burn-out - it's a thankless task and volunteers are great but don't stick around.

Most mod posts are unpaid, why are we talking about paying moderators? It'll never pay enough for someone to police the forums 24/7, not that it really needs it (the forums are quiet when I'm awake for example and pick up when I go to sleep). I'd be against paying mods because it's just another questionable motivation for people to take the job. I'd want people to take the job because they want to do the job (preferably not just because of the power) rather than because it pays.

Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.
Soldant's Law - A person will happily suspend their moral values if they can express moral outrage by doing so.

Most mod posts are unpaid, why are we talking about paying moderators? It'll never pay enough for someone to police the forums 24/7, not that it really needs it (the forums are quiet when I'm awake for example and pick up when I go to sleep). I'd be against paying mods because it's just another questionable motivation for people to take the job. I'd want people to take the job because they want to do the job (preferably not just because of the power) rather than because it pays.

Deano2099's not really talking about paying them. Maybe you missed it earlier, but he was talking about non-monetary compensation. I think it could work. Or maybe you thought that idea was just as bad as paying with money and I just misinterpreted you.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by deano2099

I think there are probably some people happy to do it for the benefit of the community (though there you potentially have the issue of what their 'vision' for the community is and so on) but then I think you risk burn-out - it's a thankless task and volunteers are great but don't stick around.

Plus RPS have always been very strongly and vocally in favour of paying people who write for them, and outspoken against the many sites asking people to write for free. Obviously they can't really afford to pay a community mod (and even if they could, better the money was spent on hiring Cara - or some other writer if they absolutely must). But it'd be nice to find a way to compensate that person that was very much in the RPS ethos.

Agreed.

Last edited by gwathdring; 14-05-2013 at 01:20 AM.

I think of [the Internet] as a grisly raw steak laid out on a porcelain benchtop in the sun, covered in chocolate hazelnut sauce. In the background plays Stardustís Music Sounds Better With You. Thereís lots of fog. --tomeoftom

Back in secondary school, we had this cool guy teacher who became a totalitarian prat after he assumed an executive position. My opinion is that positions of absolute power confers upon the recipient far too big of an expectation - a prophecy - of unimpeachablity. This expectation often clashes with reality (nobody is never wrong, factually or otherwise) and the authority figure uses every power at his disposal to "correct", or rather, deny that wrong. I say that's 80% of the problem right there. The remaining 20% is the ego trip and how people get really carried away by that process.

That said, i've seen plenty of functioning moderators in other forums so probably not a big issue. But you know what, I think it would be interesting to appoint the worst possible candidate for the post. Consider it a social experiment. I think there's plenty of observational value in that and it would be a fun exercise for RPS PC Gaming Discussion, who's members are obsessed with the political stuff.

Deano2099's not really talking about paying them. Maybe you missed it earlier, but he was talking about non-monetary compensation. I think it could work. Or maybe you thought that idea was just as bad as paying with money and I just misinterpreted you.

I didn't read Deano's previous post or if I did I wasn't reading it properly. Even still, any sort of compensation seems absurd to me. Moderating is a responsibility and a privilege in its own right, piling on more to make it more 'attractive' seems ridiculous. There's no shortage of people willing to do it for free (as it generally comes with no benefits besides mod powers) so why the incentive? You're unlikely to change the quality of candidates (they are already plenty of people I'd consider suitable who have put their hand up or been nominated).

Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.
Soldant's Law - A person will happily suspend their moral values if they can express moral outrage by doing so.